By: Glenn
- 11th January 2002 at 02:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 11-01-02 AT 02:22 AM (GMT)]Sauron,
The pictures would have been taken in the 90's actually, as multiple carrier cleared opertional Su-27Ks didn't exist before 1990. The production through to OPEVAL stage of the Su-27K was 1991-94, with intense sea trials occuring in the latter half of 1994. Russia's sole (active) naval fighter regiment the 279 KIAP only has the 24 Su-33s (post 1998 designation), and apparently at least 10 of these were deployed for the Kuznetsov's first Med cruise of 1996.
While the Su-33 is more or less a warmed over Flanker-A incorporating navalised features, it apparently does have a rudimentary ASM capability with Kh-31(AS-17) underwing and has been seen with the enormous Kh-41 (albeit inert example) on the centerline, although debate remains about the usefulness of the latter. An upgrade programme does exist to fully multi-missionize the Su-33 but this has apparently floundered due to lack of funding.
I don't doubt the Su-33's prowess as a fighter if as advertised it's performance is near to or equal to that of the land-based Flanker-A. But I see the main detractors been that they are _LIMITED_ in number, and even at sea, the kind of support that is needed to make them really effective is lacking i.e. EW support, long-ranged/high endurance AWACs etc. One-for-one, the Su-33 is a credible sea-borne/carrier-borne fighter all things considered, but as a total threat force, it is not significant enough to be of major concern, especially to the USN.
The Future
The Russians can if they feel so inclined build more of the PR 1143.5 class CVs, but funding and manning might well get in the way despite Putin's long desired intentions regarding the navy and his ambitious 'by 2007' modernization plans. The funding can be made available, but not to all sectors, and it will boil down to priorities, and for the time being that seems to be with the submarine fleet. Examples of recent sub funding would be the Kursk salvage operation, which apprently cost them the better part of a billion dollars, and the recent completion (and commisioning) of another Akula II class SSN.
As to 'someone' else operating the Su-33, or another navalised Flanker type, who knows? But for now the Chinese _may_ seem to be a likely candidate, and if their initial CV (anytime from 2010 onwards?) is a 40-50,000 ton STOBAR then we could see them opt for the Su-33 as an initail naval-air capability (already proven, tested and operational) plus they would have the benefit of experience with the type in the land-based Su-27SK/J-11. There are rumours around about the development of a twin-engined J-10 which would be intended for this future CV, but if the J-10 programme itself is anything to go by such development could be a while before it sees light, and operational CV use? Even further away.
Personaly, I would not be surprised to see the Chinese go for the Flanker onboard a future carrier, but I would see a multi-role type been adopted over the choice of a basic fighter, as this seems to be the direction that Chinese doctrine is taking nowadays with their air force at least. In light of that, I would see them navalise (with Russian help) the Su-30MKK, which may be in license production by 2005+. Such a programme could involve the airframe mods of the Su-33 (e.g. canards) and could even be dubbed by Sukhoi (and perhaps NATO) as the 'Su-33MKK' adding yet another colourful designation to the plethora already (do we need a dictionary yet?).
Then again, we could see something very radical, and perhaps even the resurrection of the Yak-41 Freestyle programme. Anything is possible with the right funding - from elsewhere.
In conclusion, the Su-33 today is there, operational with the Russian navy and by all accounts effective, and piloted by some fairly experienced crew, but as a total threat to anyone, it may have more install much later in time than it does today.
Regards, Glenn.
New
By: Anonymous
- 11th January 2002 at 02:39Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 11-01-02 AT 02:42 AM (GMT)]You are missing the point Sauron.
What is the likelyhood of Russian carrier aircraft in direct confrontation with US carrier aircraft?
I think we'd agree it is pretty close to zip.
The Russians have no sea lanes of communication to defend, and are really just oriented to protecting their SSBNs. (or just raise their standard of living)
The F-14 on the other hand has been used widely against shore based aircraft as will the F-18EF. It is simply because the US chooses to use carriers to punnish small countries and make sure it gets it's way world wide. (Like any single superpower would).
Countries like Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Serbia, Afghanistan and other states that don't do as they are told are the "Carriers" the US carriers will get most use against.
If Libya and/or Iran buy Mig-31Ms with 300km range R-37s in 5 years time how well do you think the F-18s will defend the fleet from Su-24s or by then Su-34s coming in low and fast with Moskits, Alphas, or Yakhonts?
Will the US carriers be destroyed?
Probably not because they will recognise the threat and not move to within range of the threat. This will make them rather restricted weapons of dubious use against enemies that have the money to defend themselves which may be used as an excuse to focus more money on the exotic hypersonic bombers that the US has on the drawing boards.
By: seahawk
- 11th January 2002 at 07:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Sauron I did not know the E/F fights only carrierbased aircraft. Sorry about it.
Just the fact that there is only one carrier using the SU does not mean that the aircraft is bad, it just means that not many countries can afford a large aircraft carrier.
So I´m saying a landbased E/F has no chance against a landbased SU27/33. AMRAAM or not. And the performance of the newer russian AAM is not very wll known, perhaps the US could encounter some nasty surprises.
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 11th January 2002 at 17:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Glenn.
Thanks for the information. I appreciate the time it took to put it together and its is a nice summary of where the navalized Su-27 stands. As you obviously have good sources of info, I would not question the factual details that you outlined. I will just point out that the facts are few and questions are many and that I believe it's a bit of a stretch to say the Russian carrier is operational. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Seahawk
I guess the Super Hornet will have to fight anything it has to, landbased or otherwise but it remains to be seen, as we all know it is just now entering service. Who really knows what the outcome between it and the navalized SU-27 would be. What we do know, however, is that the Hornet is ready. Do we know that the Su-27 is?
Garry.
I think most here would agree with you first points. I believe that bit about hoards of Lybian, Iranian, North Korean and Serb Mig-31's and Su-27s coming in low and fast armed with 300km ranged Yakalots (?) is a bit doubtful though. We all remember what happened to the Lybians the last couple of times. You seem to have a great admiration for dictatorships but you don't live in one.
By: Vortex
- 12th January 2002 at 02:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Ok, instead of saying "my dad can beat up your dad" can we have someone here listing the specs of these three planes (navalized only!).
New
By: Anonymous
- 12th January 2002 at 06:39Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Vortex
You really think that will help??
Sauron
I live in a democracy Sauron...that means Dictatorship 3 1/2 years and then my opinion matters 6 months, Dictatorship 3 1/2 years and then my opinion matters for 6 months, Dictatorship 3 1/2 years and then my opinion matters 6 months, Dictatorship 3 years (early election called) and then my opinion matters for 6 months etc etc.
I am not suggesting that in 10 years all of those countries mentioned will be armed to the teeth with super weapons and the US will be helpless. Libya and Iran have already shown interest in new Russian weapons, the former in the Mig-31M or an export version of it and the latter in more Su-24s as well as both looking at Russian anti Ship missiles as well as other SAM and other weapons.
To suggest they will or should just be satisfied with what they have is buring your head in the sand for a commentator and downright treasonable for a planner.
The last time the US navy took on Libya it had F-14s and indepth knowledge and more importantly jamming capability of Libyan SAMs via info from Israel which meant air control was guaranteed.
Dictatorships or not they have the right to protect their own territory from foreign powers.
"What we do know, however, is that the Hornet is ready. Do we know that the Su-27 is?"
All we know about the SH is that against a country with almost no airforce the US Navy prefers to use old expensive F-14s instead of their latest toy in real combat... when was the last time that happened!!!!
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 13th January 2002 at 03:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Garry to my knowledge the Super Hornet has not seen service in Afghanistan.
Regards
New
By: Anonymous
- 13th January 2002 at 15:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yup
That is correct. The only Carrier that might have the first chance of taking the SH into combat might be the Kennedy when it goes out next.
Garry,
Here is a little news flash. No one really cares about your warped politcal views. Say what you want, but most of your stuff only gives the rest of us a good laugh. Give it a rest.
elp
usa
New
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder
- 13th January 2002 at 20:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: My IMO's
"First, a 242lb wonder WILL NOT beat a 412lb AIM-120C5"
"AS-30 is a joke (expensive, limited warhead, huge size)"
Hi Kurt,I´m keen to know:
1.why is a heavy air to air missile better than a lightweight AAM
2.why is a lightweight AGM better than a heavy heavier AGM given that an AAM may well have to manouvre at high G at the extreme of it´s range and given that railway bridges, hangars and ammo dumps are usually fairly static.
Kurt, do tell.
New
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder
- 13th January 2002 at 20:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: My IMO's
Sorry, I forgot
Kurt can you share with us the long list of successful British radar developments over the last twenty years.
Reads like a list of Italian war heroes
New
By: Anonymous
- 13th January 2002 at 21:37Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: yup
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-01-02 AT 09:50 PM (GMT)]"No one really cares about your warped politcal views."
Warped in what way? Do I need to think the good old US of A is the best place in the world and dream one day of washing ashore there to be considered normal?
Do I have to hate those nasty commies, most of whom aren't even commies anymore?
It is quite funny that I am not allowed to discriminate against blacks, or asians, or homosexuals, or jews, or women, or any other minority, because of colour, race, age, or beliefs, except if their political beliefs are communist, and then I can say stuff like "better dead than red".
I get told off for judging all Yanks for what their government does, but anything from Russia is crap, they haven't mastered the microchip yet, and they still use pencils instead of super dooper pens that will write in space.
It might come as a shock to you elp but there are places on this earth where not being American is OK. In fact (this might shock you) in some countries people are proud to be where they are from, and don't feel the whole universe belongs to the US, or Britain, or France or Spain or whereever.
But no, you aren't interested in politics, your government relies on it. When it wants to spend money on weapons it invents a missile gap, or mentions the overwhelming Soviet superiority and you vote for them cause of course you want to feel safe and have a strong country. Of course you'd have been a much stronger country if your government hadn't pi$$ed away billions of your tax dollars away every year, but then the cold war would still be going because the money you saved would also have been saved by the Ruskies. Of course with neither side arming to the teeth maybe the cold war might be called the second phoney war. A lot of people gained a lot of money and power from this arms race and it isn't the good old US of A that has to worry about mine or UXO from the last little proxy war to test the new toys.
Well, I'm all out of jokes for now Elp, hope you enjoyed them. ;-)
I hope none of my rantings made you think or anything, you just go back to your nice shiny planes, and cars and don't think about anything.
(Ironic really the one area you avoid could have been the one area I agree with you most regarding the F-15E purchase by Korea. Spares and integration are a tiny hurdle compared to the political one which I think will be the deciding one for the competition, but no, you can believe it will be a fair competition and the best aircraft will win.) :-(
By: ink
- 14th January 2002 at 01:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: yup
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-01-02 AT 01:53 AM (GMT)]Well now, just before y'all start Garry-bashing again I'd like to mention something about the proposed Indian carrier. I don't know if this point has been made already because I couldn't read all 100-something posts so bear with me:
How many nations operate modern, multi-role, fixed-wing aircraft from a carrier? A very small handful, I think you'll find.With the Gorshov and the navalised SMT India will become a member of this very select club and will gain the special privelage of being an experienced operator of fixed wing combat aircraft from a lump of floating metal. This will conveniently give it the option (assuming it feels rich enough in the future) to build bigger, better carriers with bigger, better aircraft. India is a developing country, improving economically, militarily etc. It is not the worlds only super-power but it seems to surprise some of you that the Indians aren't planning to operate aircraft from a massive carrier equipped with several catapults and supported by a plethora of other warships.
Also, if you guys are really trying to compare the true capabilities of carrier-born aircraft try swaping the nations operating. So, for example, how would MiG-29SMT-Ks operated from catapult capable super-carriers and supported by tankers and AWACS etc compare to SHs operated from a tiny carrier without any support at all?
And finally, Garry, I feel your pain.
New
By: Anonymous
- 14th January 2002 at 02:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: yup
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-01-02 AT 02:56 AM (GMT)]I feel that Garry is a pain too....
Thanks Garry, I needed another laugh.
elp
usa
New
By: Anonymous
- 14th January 2002 at 02:58Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: yup
"So, for example, how would MiG-29SMT-Ks operated from catapult capable super-carriers and supported by tankers and AWACS etc compare to SHs operated from a tiny carrier without any support at all?"
I've tried that before Ink they won't listen. The mig-29xyz is typecast as a non-steam cat compatible aircraft for little ships.
Any suggestion of smaller ships has Elp and others turning up their noses because they are no where near as capable as cat launched aircraft. But then the Indians aren't taking on the world like the US does. Any use of carrier borne aircraft will either be used in support of land based Su-30s or against enemy forces at sea with no air capability at all... unless India is planning to invade Australia with them. ;-)
From a large carrier with steam catapault the Mig-29 would in my opinion be far superior to the SH. But, no, as they like to say, lets compare apples with oranges.
"And finally, Garry, I feel your pain."
Cheers mate... I just caught a glimpse of some guy on Oprah as I was changing channels who said these Al Quada terrorists were blowing things up in the US and targetting US citizens because they can't stand their freedoms, and their rights, or even the freedom to have shows like Oprah...
I think that says it all... they just don't get it do they? It seems to come as a surprise to Americans that the rest of the world couldn't give a toss about what freedoms they have.
Look at my stance on the death penalty. I agree with the use of the death penalty in the US as long as the US citizens themselves want it. Others on this board (Geforce plus a few others) thought it was barbaric and should be stopped. Most of the US posters (I think all of them were pro DP to some extent, though a few expressed concerns that the wrong people were onthe receiveing end) actually agreed with me... I think it was Biff who said that he and I were on the same page on this issue. What is this waffle?
The point I am trying to make is, if this board was the world and Geforce was the United States of America there would be financial isolation through sanctions at the very least and possibly intervention at worst (If the offender was small or closeby). The actual Americans on this board, who now have at best to try to live in a country under constant financial pressure and struggling to survive, and at worst US troops coming in to change the government you might have elected are not going to be thinking what a wonderful place Belgium must be with all their freedoms and rights, we must destroy them. Even if it didn't happen to your country, but a neighbouring country what will you think of this country called the US.
You were appalled when these damn europeans who owe you for WWII where you pulled them out of the abyss were trying o tell you what was right or wrong in your own country you lost sight, or chose to ignore the fact that your government has been promoting governments favourable to the US all round the world. From little things like the CIA bribing Fijian officials to vote against any Nuclear Free Pacific treaty, through to putting in power a new president in Haiti that, although a dictator and quite a nasty one, was someone who didn't look to Cuba for friends.
Sounds harmless enough, but imposing your will and interfering can get you into trouble and Sept 11 is one such result.
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 14th January 2002 at 05:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: return to the question
Ink.
To return to the original question, the Mig-29(?) can probably be made to work providing the Russian carrier can be made to work. That said, there is no realistic chance IMHO that the Mig will ever match the effectiveness of the Super Hornet at sea or even the Rafale. It will not match the SH in load, in range, in turnaround, in reliabilty, in weapons flexiblity or any other measure you can come up with. At this point, no one can even say if the Indian Navy will even put the carrier into service.
If, however, the Indian government thinks it has to have the carrier, it will get it. If it wants to build additional vessels, it will. if it feels a compulsion to prove that STOBAL is fine and they don't need USN type carrier battle groups and want to persue another approach,fine. If they do all that just to prove they can out of pride or for political reasons, they are welcome. They will face whatever economic and military consequences come with it. This will take more than a little time.
But to return to the original proposition, the simple fact is that in the here and now, there are more Hornet sorties from one USN carrier, in one day, than there are navalized Migs and Su-27's and Rafales put together, nevermind the SH. None of this has anything to do with politics, or what might have been, or what could be if the world was turned on its head or if the Roles of the US and the USSR had been reversed.
Regards
New
By: Anonymous
- 14th January 2002 at 17:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: ink
- 14th January 2002 at 19:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: return to the question
Sauron,
I can see what you're trying to say and I agree. I was simply trying to approach this from a different angle. You see, my great passion (aside from military aviation) is small arms. I just love everything about the world of small arms, especially easter-bloc assault and sniper-rifles. The reason I brought this up is that if you tested a rifle by giving it to a company lavished with air support and artillery, armour, med-evac etc and pitted them against a small squad of men with no support you wouldn't get a fair evaluation of how that rifle performs. I think the same goes for aircraft. I beleive the question was "Which is the best fighter?" (or something similar) and not "Which is the best/richest/largest navy?". Because an export customer wouldn't have any of the wonderful capabilities that the USN has they would be forced to chose based on the merits of actual individual aircraft.
By: Vortex
- 14th January 2002 at 19:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: return to the question
In that case Ink, you would choose either the Rafale or the F-18 since both have a comprehensive BITE and self fixing capabilites. The Mig29 will have it's avionics failing all over the places if not given the right support as you suggested. Sure Russian equipments are often mechanically more robust if not reliable through outright simplicity of the design. But, in the modern warfare, without the avionics, you're pretty much sitting duck even against others who only have working rudementary PD radar.
New
By: Anonymous
- 14th January 2002 at 20:30Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: return to the question
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-01-02 AT 08:43 PM (GMT)]Ahhh, yes, Vortex, the old reliability problem.
Those super dooper western aircraft are so reliable because money is spent on spares and support. The reliability of the Mig is questioned because the short sighted Yugo AF skimped on spares and support to the point where even the locals brought legal cases against them. If they were flying F-18s the F-18s would of course have told them what the problem was. They would not have even gotten airborne because knowing what a problem is and having the spares available to solve those problems are two different things.
Ahh, but those sooper dooper western aircraft would have been able to fight anyway.
If we compare the two aircraft without a functioning radar they would be left with only their IRSTs. (I assume the SH has an IRST).
So the SH will be armed with deadly -M and soon -X model sidewinders. The Mig will have R-73, and long range R-27 IR guided missiles with ranges from 30-80km.
Of course neither will have much chance against AWACS controlled fighters armed with AMRAAMS which both give a longer range accurate picture of the airspace around them which while active and unstealthy gives significant range and engagement advantages.
(Ask any artilleryman and he'll tell you what range advantage means.)
If you had read the articles about the -SMT upgrade, or even the much earlier -C upgrade (the latter which represents all of the Migs in Russian service) you would already know that fault finding software and hardware for the avionics and engines is already a standard fit along with the ability to simulate training targets for radar and IRST channels.
Sauron
The Indians have already used their carrier in anger and obviously see a need for expansion in that area. There are many countries that do not really need a full sized carrier and if they did get one it would mainly for show. Countries like Thailand, and potentially Australia and even probably China. India is not one of these countries.
The alternative to the 'little' carriers they are progressing with would be to scratch build a supercarrier wich would be pointless without steam catapaults and nuclear power. Neither of these technologies are developed in the Indian navy plus the costs would be so high it is unlikely they could afford to buy the necessary supply ships, or support ships without which a super carrier is really not very super. In fact without serious SSN support I'd say a sitting target.
Scooter
Your answer is basically dependant on who will use the aircraft. If you ask an Indian (or anyone who actually thinks about the current situation and is realistic) they'll tell you Mig-29, simply because of the prevailing conditions, and the size of the only carrier available to them. To a French person (or possibly most europeans) the Rafale is a sophisticated modern aircraft that will most probably serve the French very well.
To a die hard American supporter it still might come down to what they think of the SH as to whether they like the SH or the Rafale.
So in My opinion ths means Rafale first and SH and Mig-29 second equal.
(There is no reason why a Mig-29 cannot in future be adapted for cat launch, so growth potential is pretty good too.)
By: ink
- 14th January 2002 at 23:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: return to the question
Vortex,
Actually I had decided not to state a preference because I see three quite different aircraft meant for differing requirements of very different nations. I don't think comapring them is actually very sensible as no nation thinking about building up a carrier force (or expanding one) will ever think "Hmmm, MiG-29SMT-K, Rafale or Super Hornet?". If I am utterly proven wrong by somewhere like Brazil I will come back to this thread and eat my hat.
I was actually trying to make the argument between Sauron, Garry and yourself more of a fair fight.
Posts: 1,971
By: Glenn - 11th January 2002 at 02:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 11-01-02 AT 02:22 AM (GMT)]Sauron,
The pictures would have been taken in the 90's actually, as multiple carrier cleared opertional Su-27Ks didn't exist before 1990. The production through to OPEVAL stage of the Su-27K was 1991-94, with intense sea trials occuring in the latter half of 1994. Russia's sole (active) naval fighter regiment the 279 KIAP only has the 24 Su-33s (post 1998 designation), and apparently at least 10 of these were deployed for the Kuznetsov's first Med cruise of 1996.
While the Su-33 is more or less a warmed over Flanker-A incorporating navalised features, it apparently does have a rudimentary ASM capability with Kh-31(AS-17) underwing and has been seen with the enormous Kh-41 (albeit inert example) on the centerline, although debate remains about the usefulness of the latter. An upgrade programme does exist to fully multi-missionize the Su-33 but this has apparently floundered due to lack of funding.
I don't doubt the Su-33's prowess as a fighter if as advertised it's performance is near to or equal to that of the land-based Flanker-A. But I see the main detractors been that they are _LIMITED_ in number, and even at sea, the kind of support that is needed to make them really effective is lacking i.e. EW support, long-ranged/high endurance AWACs etc. One-for-one, the Su-33 is a credible sea-borne/carrier-borne fighter all things considered, but as a total threat force, it is not significant enough to be of major concern, especially to the USN.
The Future
The Russians can if they feel so inclined build more of the PR 1143.5 class CVs, but funding and manning might well get in the way despite Putin's long desired intentions regarding the navy and his ambitious 'by 2007' modernization plans. The funding can be made available, but not to all sectors, and it will boil down to priorities, and for the time being that seems to be with the submarine fleet. Examples of recent sub funding would be the Kursk salvage operation, which apprently cost them the better part of a billion dollars, and the recent completion (and commisioning) of another Akula II class SSN.
As to 'someone' else operating the Su-33, or another navalised Flanker type, who knows? But for now the Chinese _may_ seem to be a likely candidate, and if their initial CV (anytime from 2010 onwards?) is a 40-50,000 ton STOBAR then we could see them opt for the Su-33 as an initail naval-air capability (already proven, tested and operational) plus they would have the benefit of experience with the type in the land-based Su-27SK/J-11. There are rumours around about the development of a twin-engined J-10 which would be intended for this future CV, but if the J-10 programme itself is anything to go by such development could be a while before it sees light, and operational CV use? Even further away.
Personaly, I would not be surprised to see the Chinese go for the Flanker onboard a future carrier, but I would see a multi-role type been adopted over the choice of a basic fighter, as this seems to be the direction that Chinese doctrine is taking nowadays with their air force at least. In light of that, I would see them navalise (with Russian help) the Su-30MKK, which may be in license production by 2005+. Such a programme could involve the airframe mods of the Su-33 (e.g. canards) and could even be dubbed by Sukhoi (and perhaps NATO) as the 'Su-33MKK' adding yet another colourful designation to the plethora already (do we need a dictionary yet?).
Then again, we could see something very radical, and perhaps even the resurrection of the Yak-41 Freestyle programme. Anything is possible with the right funding - from elsewhere.
In conclusion, the Su-33 today is there, operational with the Russian navy and by all accounts effective, and piloted by some fairly experienced crew, but as a total threat to anyone, it may have more install much later in time than it does today.
Regards, Glenn.
By: Anonymous - 11th January 2002 at 02:39 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 11-01-02 AT 02:42 AM (GMT)]You are missing the point Sauron.
What is the likelyhood of Russian carrier aircraft in direct confrontation with US carrier aircraft?
I think we'd agree it is pretty close to zip.
The Russians have no sea lanes of communication to defend, and are really just oriented to protecting their SSBNs. (or just raise their standard of living)
The F-14 on the other hand has been used widely against shore based aircraft as will the F-18EF. It is simply because the US chooses to use carriers to punnish small countries and make sure it gets it's way world wide. (Like any single superpower would).
Countries like Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Serbia, Afghanistan and other states that don't do as they are told are the "Carriers" the US carriers will get most use against.
If Libya and/or Iran buy Mig-31Ms with 300km range R-37s in 5 years time how well do you think the F-18s will defend the fleet from Su-24s or by then Su-34s coming in low and fast with Moskits, Alphas, or Yakhonts?
Will the US carriers be destroyed?
Probably not because they will recognise the threat and not move to within range of the threat. This will make them rather restricted weapons of dubious use against enemies that have the money to defend themselves which may be used as an excuse to focus more money on the exotic hypersonic bombers that the US has on the drawing boards.
Posts: 4,202
By: seahawk - 11th January 2002 at 07:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Sauron I did not know the E/F fights only carrierbased aircraft. Sorry about it.
Just the fact that there is only one carrier using the SU does not mean that the aircraft is bad, it just means that not many countries can afford a large aircraft carrier.
So I´m saying a landbased E/F has no chance against a landbased SU27/33. AMRAAM or not. And the performance of the newer russian AAM is not very wll known, perhaps the US could encounter some nasty surprises.
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 11th January 2002 at 17:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Glenn.
Thanks for the information. I appreciate the time it took to put it together and its is a nice summary of where the navalized Su-27 stands. As you obviously have good sources of info, I would not question the factual details that you outlined. I will just point out that the facts are few and questions are many and that I believe it's a bit of a stretch to say the Russian carrier is operational. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Seahawk
I guess the Super Hornet will have to fight anything it has to, landbased or otherwise but it remains to be seen, as we all know it is just now entering service. Who really knows what the outcome between it and the navalized SU-27 would be. What we do know, however, is that the Hornet is ready. Do we know that the Su-27 is?
Garry.
I think most here would agree with you first points. I believe that bit about hoards of Lybian, Iranian, North Korean and Serb Mig-31's and Su-27s coming in low and fast armed with 300km ranged Yakalots (?) is a bit doubtful though. We all remember what happened to the Lybians the last couple of times. You seem to have a great admiration for dictatorships but you don't live in one.
Regards all.
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 12th January 2002 at 02:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Ok, instead of saying "my dad can beat up your dad" can we have someone here listing the specs of these three planes (navalized only!).
By: Anonymous - 12th January 2002 at 06:39 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Vortex
You really think that will help??
Sauron
I live in a democracy Sauron...that means Dictatorship 3 1/2 years and then my opinion matters 6 months, Dictatorship 3 1/2 years and then my opinion matters for 6 months, Dictatorship 3 1/2 years and then my opinion matters 6 months, Dictatorship 3 years (early election called) and then my opinion matters for 6 months etc etc.
I am not suggesting that in 10 years all of those countries mentioned will be armed to the teeth with super weapons and the US will be helpless. Libya and Iran have already shown interest in new Russian weapons, the former in the Mig-31M or an export version of it and the latter in more Su-24s as well as both looking at Russian anti Ship missiles as well as other SAM and other weapons.
To suggest they will or should just be satisfied with what they have is buring your head in the sand for a commentator and downright treasonable for a planner.
The last time the US navy took on Libya it had F-14s and indepth knowledge and more importantly jamming capability of Libyan SAMs via info from Israel which meant air control was guaranteed.
Dictatorships or not they have the right to protect their own territory from foreign powers.
"What we do know, however, is that the Hornet is ready. Do we know that the Su-27 is?"
All we know about the SH is that against a country with almost no airforce the US Navy prefers to use old expensive F-14s instead of their latest toy in real combat... when was the last time that happened!!!!
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 13th January 2002 at 03:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Where are the Russian jets?
Garry to my knowledge the Super Hornet has not seen service in Afghanistan.
Regards
By: Anonymous - 13th January 2002 at 15:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yup
That is correct. The only Carrier that might have the first chance of taking the SH into combat might be the Kennedy when it goes out next.
Garry,
Here is a little news flash. No one really cares about your warped politcal views. Say what you want, but most of your stuff only gives the rest of us a good laugh. Give it a rest.
elp
usa
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder - 13th January 2002 at 20:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: My IMO's
"First, a 242lb wonder WILL NOT beat a 412lb AIM-120C5"
"AS-30 is a joke (expensive, limited warhead, huge size)"
Hi Kurt,I´m keen to know:
1.why is a heavy air to air missile better than a lightweight AAM
2.why is a lightweight AGM better than a heavy heavier AGM given that an AAM may well have to manouvre at high G at the extreme of it´s range and given that railway bridges, hangars and ammo dumps are usually fairly static.
Kurt, do tell.
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder - 13th January 2002 at 20:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: My IMO's
Sorry, I forgot
Kurt can you share with us the long list of successful British radar developments over the last twenty years.
Reads like a list of Italian war heroes
By: Anonymous - 13th January 2002 at 21:37 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: yup
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-01-02 AT 09:50 PM (GMT)]"No one really cares about your warped politcal views."
Warped in what way? Do I need to think the good old US of A is the best place in the world and dream one day of washing ashore there to be considered normal?
Do I have to hate those nasty commies, most of whom aren't even commies anymore?
It is quite funny that I am not allowed to discriminate against blacks, or asians, or homosexuals, or jews, or women, or any other minority, because of colour, race, age, or beliefs, except if their political beliefs are communist, and then I can say stuff like "better dead than red".
I get told off for judging all Yanks for what their government does, but anything from Russia is crap, they haven't mastered the microchip yet, and they still use pencils instead of super dooper pens that will write in space.
It might come as a shock to you elp but there are places on this earth where not being American is OK. In fact (this might shock you) in some countries people are proud to be where they are from, and don't feel the whole universe belongs to the US, or Britain, or France or Spain or whereever.
But no, you aren't interested in politics, your government relies on it. When it wants to spend money on weapons it invents a missile gap, or mentions the overwhelming Soviet superiority and you vote for them cause of course you want to feel safe and have a strong country. Of course you'd have been a much stronger country if your government hadn't pi$$ed away billions of your tax dollars away every year, but then the cold war would still be going because the money you saved would also have been saved by the Ruskies. Of course with neither side arming to the teeth maybe the cold war might be called the second phoney war. A lot of people gained a lot of money and power from this arms race and it isn't the good old US of A that has to worry about mine or UXO from the last little proxy war to test the new toys.
Well, I'm all out of jokes for now Elp, hope you enjoyed them. ;-)
I hope none of my rantings made you think or anything, you just go back to your nice shiny planes, and cars and don't think about anything.
(Ironic really the one area you avoid could have been the one area I agree with you most regarding the F-15E purchase by Korea. Spares and integration are a tiny hurdle compared to the political one which I think will be the deciding one for the competition, but no, you can believe it will be a fair competition and the best aircraft will win.) :-(
Posts: 3,269
By: ink - 14th January 2002 at 01:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: yup
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-01-02 AT 01:53 AM (GMT)]Well now, just before y'all start Garry-bashing again I'd like to mention something about the proposed Indian carrier. I don't know if this point has been made already because I couldn't read all 100-something posts so bear with me:
How many nations operate modern, multi-role, fixed-wing aircraft from a carrier? A very small handful, I think you'll find.With the Gorshov and the navalised SMT India will become a member of this very select club and will gain the special privelage of being an experienced operator of fixed wing combat aircraft from a lump of floating metal. This will conveniently give it the option (assuming it feels rich enough in the future) to build bigger, better carriers with bigger, better aircraft. India is a developing country, improving economically, militarily etc. It is not the worlds only super-power but it seems to surprise some of you that the Indians aren't planning to operate aircraft from a massive carrier equipped with several catapults and supported by a plethora of other warships.
Also, if you guys are really trying to compare the true capabilities of carrier-born aircraft try swaping the nations operating. So, for example, how would MiG-29SMT-Ks operated from catapult capable super-carriers and supported by tankers and AWACS etc compare to SHs operated from a tiny carrier without any support at all?
And finally, Garry, I feel your pain.
By: Anonymous - 14th January 2002 at 02:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: yup
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-01-02 AT 02:56 AM (GMT)]I feel that Garry is a pain too....
Thanks Garry, I needed another laugh.
elp
usa
By: Anonymous - 14th January 2002 at 02:58 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: yup
"So, for example, how would MiG-29SMT-Ks operated from catapult capable super-carriers and supported by tankers and AWACS etc compare to SHs operated from a tiny carrier without any support at all?"
I've tried that before Ink they won't listen. The mig-29xyz is typecast as a non-steam cat compatible aircraft for little ships.
Any suggestion of smaller ships has Elp and others turning up their noses because they are no where near as capable as cat launched aircraft. But then the Indians aren't taking on the world like the US does. Any use of carrier borne aircraft will either be used in support of land based Su-30s or against enemy forces at sea with no air capability at all... unless India is planning to invade Australia with them. ;-)
From a large carrier with steam catapault the Mig-29 would in my opinion be far superior to the SH. But, no, as they like to say, lets compare apples with oranges.
"And finally, Garry, I feel your pain."
Cheers mate... I just caught a glimpse of some guy on Oprah as I was changing channels who said these Al Quada terrorists were blowing things up in the US and targetting US citizens because they can't stand their freedoms, and their rights, or even the freedom to have shows like Oprah...
I think that says it all... they just don't get it do they? It seems to come as a surprise to Americans that the rest of the world couldn't give a toss about what freedoms they have.
Look at my stance on the death penalty. I agree with the use of the death penalty in the US as long as the US citizens themselves want it. Others on this board (Geforce plus a few others) thought it was barbaric and should be stopped. Most of the US posters (I think all of them were pro DP to some extent, though a few expressed concerns that the wrong people were onthe receiveing end) actually agreed with me... I think it was Biff who said that he and I were on the same page on this issue. What is this waffle?
The point I am trying to make is, if this board was the world and Geforce was the United States of America there would be financial isolation through sanctions at the very least and possibly intervention at worst (If the offender was small or closeby). The actual Americans on this board, who now have at best to try to live in a country under constant financial pressure and struggling to survive, and at worst US troops coming in to change the government you might have elected are not going to be thinking what a wonderful place Belgium must be with all their freedoms and rights, we must destroy them. Even if it didn't happen to your country, but a neighbouring country what will you think of this country called the US.
You were appalled when these damn europeans who owe you for WWII where you pulled them out of the abyss were trying o tell you what was right or wrong in your own country you lost sight, or chose to ignore the fact that your government has been promoting governments favourable to the US all round the world. From little things like the CIA bribing Fijian officials to vote against any Nuclear Free Pacific treaty, through to putting in power a new president in Haiti that, although a dictator and quite a nasty one, was someone who didn't look to Cuba for friends.
Sounds harmless enough, but imposing your will and interfering can get you into trouble and Sept 11 is one such result.
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 14th January 2002 at 05:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: return to the question
Ink.
To return to the original question, the Mig-29(?) can probably be made to work providing the Russian carrier can be made to work. That said, there is no realistic chance IMHO that the Mig will ever match the effectiveness of the Super Hornet at sea or even the Rafale. It will not match the SH in load, in range, in turnaround, in reliabilty, in weapons flexiblity or any other measure you can come up with. At this point, no one can even say if the Indian Navy will even put the carrier into service.
If, however, the Indian government thinks it has to have the carrier, it will get it. If it wants to build additional vessels, it will. if it feels a compulsion to prove that STOBAL is fine and they don't need USN type carrier battle groups and want to persue another approach,fine. If they do all that just to prove they can out of pride or for political reasons, they are welcome. They will face whatever economic and military consequences come with it. This will take more than a little time.
But to return to the original proposition, the simple fact is that in the here and now, there are more Hornet sorties from one USN carrier, in one day, than there are navalized Migs and Su-27's and Rafales put together, nevermind the SH. None of this has anything to do with politics, or what might have been, or what could be if the world was turned on its head or if the Roles of the US and the USSR had been reversed.
Regards
By: Anonymous - 14th January 2002 at 17:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: return to the question
So, which aircraft did everyone pick????
Posts: 3,269
By: ink - 14th January 2002 at 19:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: return to the question
Sauron,
I can see what you're trying to say and I agree. I was simply trying to approach this from a different angle. You see, my great passion (aside from military aviation) is small arms. I just love everything about the world of small arms, especially easter-bloc assault and sniper-rifles. The reason I brought this up is that if you tested a rifle by giving it to a company lavished with air support and artillery, armour, med-evac etc and pitted them against a small squad of men with no support you wouldn't get a fair evaluation of how that rifle performs. I think the same goes for aircraft. I beleive the question was "Which is the best fighter?" (or something similar) and not "Which is the best/richest/largest navy?". Because an export customer wouldn't have any of the wonderful capabilities that the USN has they would be forced to chose based on the merits of actual individual aircraft.
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 14th January 2002 at 19:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: return to the question
In that case Ink, you would choose either the Rafale or the F-18 since both have a comprehensive BITE and self fixing capabilites. The Mig29 will have it's avionics failing all over the places if not given the right support as you suggested. Sure Russian equipments are often mechanically more robust if not reliable through outright simplicity of the design. But, in the modern warfare, without the avionics, you're pretty much sitting duck even against others who only have working rudementary PD radar.
By: Anonymous - 14th January 2002 at 20:30 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: return to the question
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-01-02 AT 08:43 PM (GMT)]Ahhh, yes, Vortex, the old reliability problem.
Those super dooper western aircraft are so reliable because money is spent on spares and support. The reliability of the Mig is questioned because the short sighted Yugo AF skimped on spares and support to the point where even the locals brought legal cases against them. If they were flying F-18s the F-18s would of course have told them what the problem was. They would not have even gotten airborne because knowing what a problem is and having the spares available to solve those problems are two different things.
Ahh, but those sooper dooper western aircraft would have been able to fight anyway.
If we compare the two aircraft without a functioning radar they would be left with only their IRSTs. (I assume the SH has an IRST).
So the SH will be armed with deadly -M and soon -X model sidewinders. The Mig will have R-73, and long range R-27 IR guided missiles with ranges from 30-80km.
Of course neither will have much chance against AWACS controlled fighters armed with AMRAAMS which both give a longer range accurate picture of the airspace around them which while active and unstealthy gives significant range and engagement advantages.
(Ask any artilleryman and he'll tell you what range advantage means.)
If you had read the articles about the -SMT upgrade, or even the much earlier -C upgrade (the latter which represents all of the Migs in Russian service) you would already know that fault finding software and hardware for the avionics and engines is already a standard fit along with the ability to simulate training targets for radar and IRST channels.
Sauron
The Indians have already used their carrier in anger and obviously see a need for expansion in that area. There are many countries that do not really need a full sized carrier and if they did get one it would mainly for show. Countries like Thailand, and potentially Australia and even probably China. India is not one of these countries.
The alternative to the 'little' carriers they are progressing with would be to scratch build a supercarrier wich would be pointless without steam catapaults and nuclear power. Neither of these technologies are developed in the Indian navy plus the costs would be so high it is unlikely they could afford to buy the necessary supply ships, or support ships without which a super carrier is really not very super. In fact without serious SSN support I'd say a sitting target.
Scooter
Your answer is basically dependant on who will use the aircraft. If you ask an Indian (or anyone who actually thinks about the current situation and is realistic) they'll tell you Mig-29, simply because of the prevailing conditions, and the size of the only carrier available to them. To a French person (or possibly most europeans) the Rafale is a sophisticated modern aircraft that will most probably serve the French very well.
To a die hard American supporter it still might come down to what they think of the SH as to whether they like the SH or the Rafale.
So in My opinion ths means Rafale first and SH and Mig-29 second equal.
(There is no reason why a Mig-29 cannot in future be adapted for cat launch, so growth potential is pretty good too.)
Posts: 3,269
By: ink - 14th January 2002 at 23:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: return to the question
Vortex,
Actually I had decided not to state a preference because I see three quite different aircraft meant for differing requirements of very different nations. I don't think comapring them is actually very sensible as no nation thinking about building up a carrier force (or expanding one) will ever think "Hmmm, MiG-29SMT-K, Rafale or Super Hornet?". If I am utterly proven wrong by somewhere like Brazil I will come back to this thread and eat my hat.
I was actually trying to make the argument between Sauron, Garry and yourself more of a fair fight.